Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by enigmatic

  1. 39 minutes ago, Cap'nRad said:

    I'm not sure you understand the O.P's problems with the current system. The problem with the current P.A isn't the fact that it can't predict the future, but that in a lot of cases, it simply does not allow for the future to happen. Every player, given a hundred different lifetimes, will probably turn out different than he is now. With a fixed P.A, there is only one path, one hard capped potential which he cannot succeed even with a thousand lifetimes. The discussion is aimed at ensuring that other different paths are possible, not only downward (failing to meet P.A) but upward (exceeding what the P.A would have been set as). Which in turn varies gameplay from save to save, and makes for a more realistic game experience. 

    But as has been repeatedly pointed out, it doesn't.

    Young Jamie Vardy in early FMs: potential of ~100

    Young Jamie Vardy in hypothetical system: "natural talent" rated very lowly because he's a failed youth prospect playing in the lower divisions where all he needs is speed, professionalism rated very lowly because he turns up to training drunk, ambition rated very lowly because he spent three consecutive seasons earning £30 per week at Stockbridge Park Steels. CA never improves above 100 in game because the game development model ensures that Conference standard players in their mid twenties with low starting ability, low natural talent, unprofessional attitudes and lack of ambition only improve very slowly and as a 24 year old he's only got five years of improvement possible in the best case scenario. In some saves he gets released and fails to find another contract, in some saves he reaches the heady heights of League Two but fails to get into the team, in a couple of saves he actually loses some of his rawness but under absolutely no circumstances does the range of possible development paths allow someone with his starting attributes to become an England star.

    So if you're setting development speed parameters, there's still a maximum limit of ability most players can reach in the best possible FM game situation based on a function of their starting ability, age, an development parameters like natural talent, mental attributes and other factors like position. And assuming SI wants to stop most players with good attitudes and moderate talent becoming world class then the effective limits for most players will actually be quite low. Only now the researcher probably doesn't understand what that limit actually is when setting it, which is probably a step further backwards

  2. 5 hours ago, santy001 said:

    @enigmatic some good thoughts there, it's hard to put it in quite the right words, but obviously any kind of change would have to be extremely well done because while it could pre-dispose a player towards something like physical development (and in retrospect another draw back to the 3 way split of PA) it would have to be very careful of imposing any kind of restriction on it. 

    Gareth Bale is the stand-out example in my mind, there was nothing too him for the longest time, since joining Real Madrid especially he seems to have developed physically (more of a glass cannon this season mind) when young I don't think anyone would particularly have highlighted him to become as physically exceptional as he has/had up until this season. 

    It's why I think it's never moved towards anything on that front. The problem is then that there becomes more ways for researchers to get it wrong, thereby increasing the likeliness of getting it wrong, with increasingly dramatic effects in the game. 

    It again comes back to the very organic, very subtle things that SI tend to choose down this route. 

    That's why I'd prefer an optional variable to a "Physical PA" and would assume it would come with researcher recommendations about it being completely optional and recommended only for specific situations where a researcher is confident the player is a relatively early or late physical developer for their age or has some other anomaly in their development that needs to be accounted for.

    (As @Raptor Longe correctly notes this is similar to his idea of a "natural talent" in that it's a (physical) growth speed parameter rather than a limit (except I'd also keep the PA with it's far more easily-interpreted and benchmarked effects as well)

    I'd suggest visually representing it in the editor as a dropdown (or mutually exclusive checkboxes) rather than a number as well as its effects might not simply be a continuous number e.g. as well as as well as "Physically very mature", "Physically fairly mature", "Likely to continue growing" you might also get "Injury impaired" for players whose physique has been marked down as they've been out of the game for an extended period but might rapidly recover it in the right conditions, "Past physical peak" for players who have had premature body breakdowns. Though I must admit I'm struggling to think of an appropriate euphemism for "plenty of excess weight to lose" which might actually have the most potentially interesting possible effects on a player's future development.

    Bale's an unusually late developer into a physical monster but also a bit of an exception to the rule that high PAs are rarely ever too harsh: IIRC his first fixed PA was about the same as Evra's which looked generous at the time (though tbh his ability as a fullback never has been that great!)

  3. The trouble with completely separate physical, mental and technical potentials is it's a lot more thought for researchers than "does this player A have a chance of becoming better than players B, C, and D?", because you've got to take into account the way that (many) players compensate for losing physical attributes by becoming a bit smarter at the very end of their career, and completely change how players are evaluated by the AI.

    FM already tries to replicate the fact that even for high PA players, physical improvement normally happens quite rapidly at a young age, is much harder if a player already has high stats in an area and certain physical attributes are hard to improve if the player is short or skinny, whilst mental stats keep improving for a long time. It doesn't do it perfectly  (the issue Santy noted with high potential skinny regens often turning out ultra-strong was reported and acknowledged as a bug in FM17 - don't know if fixed for FM18) . But it might well still model that development better than researchers having to re-rate everybody with three sets of potential according to new guidelines which are mostly going to be re-implementing stuff already hardcoded into the game...

    That said, I suspect some researchers do have some idea of which players with a high PA are exceptions to general rules about growth. For example some physically impressive 17-20 years olds still have plenty more growing to do (like young Cristiano Ronaldo did), and some physically unimpressive 17-20 year olds are pretty much fully physically mature and thus aren't going to improve much in those areas even if their technical and mental abilities go all the way to world class (peak Scholes was as small and asthmatic as teenage Scholes). The more common cases of course are physically imposing teenagers who are basically full grown adults who won't get much taller or stronger and teenagers with low physical stats who basically still have a child's frame but will have a growth spurt before they're 21 even without much game time. So there might be a good case for a completely optional physical maturity variable within the existing PA parameters which defines young players' chances of significant physical improvement in certain areas even without necessarily having ideal facilities or match experience. (Could also be integrated it into the in game scouting/coaching system so those who are really good at judging potential sometimes advise that young players' physical weaknesses will always be a problem or might go away in future)

    There might also be a case for a "experience" variable to reflect undeveloped players' existing level of match experience. This could of course have plenty of uses in game, but one of them would be to allow for players with low "experience" to improve certain acute weaknesses (e.g. concentration, decisions, passing) very rapidly if given game time and assume that players with already high "experience"  will improve in a more balanced and gradual way with any acute weaknesses they have being more likely innate traits that always stay quite low.

  4. I think that the interest in terms of gameplay and publicity would be a lot bigger than the low WSL attendances suggest, but a lot of the problems are political.

    SI would get criticism whichever option they picked from (i) have a different version of the match engine to reflect the significant differences between the top levels of male and female football, especially in terms of physique (ii) use the same match engine (bar cosmetic differences to players), but scale female attributes (and regen attributes) accordingly so even the top level female footballers all have single digit attributes in many areas, especially physique or (iii) use the same match engine and attribute ranges since it's a separate football world, and it's not as if the statistics for km covered are exactly right for men's football anyway and hope that nobody objects to them representing women as basically short men...

    There's similar complications for the financial and transfer models since they don't really resemble any level of men's football, and introducing novel reasons for taking time out the game like pregnancy but at least that bit isn't likely to see accusations of patronising female footballers levied at them.

  5. 7 hours ago, Dorin said:

    I admit you have a good point, and I agree with a big part of it. It is realistic that many of these players shouldn't become great players even after moving to a big club as in my example, and I don't argue with that at all.
    But why would a game developer give random footballers that, as in my example would get signed by big clubs (at an early age at least), an absolute zero chance of developing into a good enough footballer? 
    In my opinion, there's a big difference between statistically not having a good chance and having a zero chance from the start.

    From a database selection logic, If you are looking to build a team of great players the logic would in this case be the following:
    1. Select players with talent (PA) over 140 let's say   (as a result this narrows down reach by many times... and usually they are in huge amount just from the countries with a higher youth rating I think)
    2. Out of those selected look at all the other factors that decide player development (facilities, coaching level, match experience, opponents value, etc)
    Then you get a list of potential good players to look at but from the start you leave out maybe over 95% of the players in the game. Are all the rest of these players having a zero chance of becoming a good footballer given a major circumstance change? And why would this be such a certain fact from the beginning even if the circumstance of some of them would drastically change and step 2 above would be pointing at a better development chance than the PA limit set?

    It's not really worth overcomplicating a research process and/or making lots of players randomly become very good for the sake of a few players the researchers have underestimated in the past. You could probably make the PA figures slightly looser, but I haven't seen a great deal of evidence that researchers are consistently underestimating players and if you make PAs generally higher and harder to reach, it's just going to make the AI do an even worse job of developing players.

    The reality is most players do have absolutely zero chance of developing into a good footballer (where good = PA>140). That's why clubs spend millions of pounds on hot prospects rather than spraying it around on useful 19 year olds from the third tier who might come good. And most of the players who go unnoticed for most of the career in the lower divisions but end up doing fine in the top division are of below average all-round ability for the top division even when they make it there (typically balanced out by consistency and attitude and being well specialised for certain roles) . There's certainly nothing in the game stopping you from taking players who've maxed out their potential at CA125 into the top division and winning titles with them.

    17 minutes ago, faber83 said:

    So you still don't understand the proposal, again and again and again...

    And your taking the duties of a researchers into this discussion makes it even more annoying... Everything can change, so the duties change. This game has changed in time.

    If I would follow your line, I could dare to say that this discussion shows how the British cannot think "out of the guidelines"... that's genetic! :lol:

    (P.S.: I live in the UK)

    People who disagree with the proposal understand it perfectly well. We just think it sucks.

    Frankly it makes far more sense for researchers to impose artificial ceilings on player development by setting PA = 130 than by setting some opaque combination of professionalism, ambition, determination, "natural talent", CA and age which has the equivalent effect of ensuring the player can't improve past PA130 in the scope of their career (and probably won't reach 120).

    At least when it's PA 130 or PA 170 people can easily express an opinion on whether it's far too harsh or far too generous

    Natural talent 10, Determination 13, Professionalism 12, Ambition 11, CA 100, Striker 20, Age 20 years 6 months, Game version FM19.3.1 not so much. 


  6. 9 hours ago, Dorin said:

    This is an interesting idea... I'll give you an example of how I understand it and see it working:
    Let's take an example of players from Iceland, where my current team is now playing... when the next generation of youth players come in they usually have a low PA rating because the country overall has a low youth rating and they're not in the best environment to develop as footballers. Let's say the PA is set to 120 on average (random guess)... they will never be able to go past this limit.
    However, if a club like Manchester United or Real Madrid would decide for whatever reason to sign a player from my team who is 16-17... the player should then have the possibility to become better than the potential maximum limit of 120 that was set initially when he was based at a small team, in Iceland. If he trains with the best, with the best facilities around and starts to play in a good league vs good opponents he could be able to reach a higher ability later on ... maybe 140-155... even if he's not as talented as some of the best world players.
    I agree PA can be perceived as a limit in this case and I don't like when they can be too limiting :)
    Maybe I want to take control of a big club and start looking to sign and develop youngsters from a particular area in the world that's underrated, just for fun.. :) 


    Manchester United look at an enormous number of young footballers and are constantly running trials and paying real money to find the most exciting youngsters, and of the 30 or so they actually take on in each age group you can count the numbers who end up with a CA of over 120 on one hand. Many of the youth intakes don't produce any players with potential in the 140+ range. More fail to become professional footballers than fall into that range 

    So even if you're a 16 year old that Man Utd has actively sought out because their scouts think you have unusual footballing talent, your chances of actually being a high end Premier League  player are in the region of <5% and your chances of failing to get a professional contract anywhere is higher even with one of the world's best coaching setups.

    So why on earth would any self-respecting game developer give random footballers that big European clubs and researchers alike don't think have unusual footballing talent a good chance of becoming a high end Premier League player simply because the person playing the save signed them for Man Utd?

  7. 1 hour ago, faber83 said:

    Damn, some guys here I see them getting a bit "hysterical" in their conservatism...

    So, to give a solid base to Raport Longe's proposal, let's put it in a simple spot that NOBODY CAN DENY in terms of LACK OF REALISM in this freaking game (if you deny that, then you're speaking in a bad faith):

    actually, EVER, in Football Manager YOU CAN NEVER SEE A 2nd or 3rd DIVISION PLAYER BECOMING A DECENT MID-HIGH 1st DIVISION PLAYER IN YOUR SAVE, IN A FEW YEARS! An that's because of the PA and/or the growth system and the weighted values allowed! That player has got to wait for six months or one year 'till the following research, for his real values to be put in place (?)! Why???

    Umm... I've signed plenty lot of second and third tier players for top tier teams in FM, and played loads for England U21. Some of them, like Ryan Sessegnon, Andre Dozzell and Will Hughes even have a chance of becoming world class.

    What would be unrealistic is if I could sign just any young player from a lower division and expect them to turn into a good top division player just because they were playing at a higher level of football. Because very few third tier players make it to the top tier, and even fewer are considered high level. 

    I'm doubt Andy King's potential changed much from when he was a good player for Leicester in the third tier to when he was a perfectly useful squad player for Leicester the Premier League champions. Although if you listen to half the people in this thread, a player with an attitude and starting abilities as good as him should have improved a lot when surrounded by better players. He didn't, in FM or real life.

  8. Does SI keep stats on CA/PA changes from version to version? Would be interesting to know the percentage of players which ended up peaking at or below the level they were given by researchers several years ago (apart from doubtless having plenty of other benchmarking and anomaly-spotting uses for SI)

  9. 47 minutes ago, Haiku said:

    I would like to test a save with all players set on 200 PA, just to see what will happen under current system and what could spoil the game. But it seem impossible task to edit the whole database to 200PA. Any suggestions?

    Editor allows you to filter players by club, select a large number of players and change one attribute for all of them at the same time

    Doing it with an entire database might be ambitious, but doing it with all players for all the top tiers of the top 3-5 European leagues should be feasible without taking too long.

  10. 1 hour ago, Raptor Longe said:

    We remove this limit, and let the starting abilities we have given to a player, and the game, to allow each player's growth to the maximum that allows him his abilities and career. Is it so complicated?

    If you want to remove this limit, you have to make a convincing argument either that (i) all young players with high starting ability should be able to continually improve until they have 200 CA (ii) it's better for the maximum PA a player can achieve to be set by a function of their age, CA "professionalism", "ambition" and similar attributes and a value called "natural talent" so the researcher still effectively sets a maximum PA, they just don't understand what number it will be.

    You have not done either, and both making growth totally unlimited or making players develop in similarly predictable ways but with much more researcher error will result in much more unrealistic futures and unbalanced games.

    I mean, what's the difference between setting John Smith's PA at 135 and setting his "natural talent" to 10 in your example, except that researchers understand that the first example means that they will be limited to never being better than a low end SerieA/Premier League player if they have a good career and don't understand that setting "natural talent" to 10 means they will be limited to never being better than a low end SerieA/Premier League player because "natural talent" levels have to be set differently for players of different professionalism?

  11. 1 minute ago, Haiku said:

    Easy to guesstimate PA? Mate, we have had Balotelli, Depay and thousands of "great prospects" through the years who failed to live up expectations. PA is not at all easy to guess, not only in FM, but in the Football world. It's easier to guess CA, and you presume those with high CA at younger age have high PA, that's all you can do.

    The thing about PA is despite the assumption people in this thread keep wrongly basing their arguments on players don't have to reach it in game, and usually don't. Balotelli did have huge potential, he just didn't live up to it

    And if you're irritated by Depay usually turning into a CA 160 player which is still quite plausible, just imagine how annoying it would be if they got rid of any upper limit, and his high level of "natural talent", starting ability and club meant he usually turned into a CA 190 player...

    How good a player might be at their best is a whole lot easier to guess than a young player's "professionalism" and "ambition" and whether setting certain values of this will end up with the player usually becoming too good. And you don't have to introduce absurdities like making most players at lower division clubs unprofessional and unambitious to try to prevent most them from ending up playing at much higher levels.

    Yes, CA is a large part of guessing PA, but we can also make reasonable assumptions that a 21 year old who's played top division football for three seasons and not improved is playing very close to their potential and one who's only just made the team might still have more room for growth, and an U17 star player who relies heavily on the fact that he's bigger than his teammates probably doesn't have particularly outstanding potential whereas the little skilful guy that the club has brought over from Eastern Europe  might get a lot better than he is now.


  12. Most of the values governing generated players' PA are already dynamic, including but not limited to league standard, club reputation, clubs' facilities and national team current reputation. That's why people have been able to make the likes of San Marino competitive after playing FM for a very long time (indeed if anything the system is already far too generous:  a nation of 33,000 people is not going to produce many great players even if its club side dominates Serie A for a generation)

    But it's pretty obvious that you can pump all the money in the world into the league of Ireland and Brazil with its 200 million football fanatics having skill-focused kickabouts on beaches is still going to have some advantages in the player pool.

    It really isn't "racism" to acknowledge that.

  13. 9 hours ago, Haiku said:

    And is that your explanation of PA existence? Major attribute that nobody knows, while the others are still in place and are heavily impacting player's growth? Having 19 year old rising star already fulfilled his PA, because researcher has it wrong on other attributes... Much easier, yes, more accurate, not.  

    Well yes, I think it's pretty clear that one of the major advantages of PA is that one relatively-easy-to-guesstimate attribute cancels out the likelihood of several hard-to-estimate and often random attributes ensuring that the national teams of the future are usually dominated by little known players from the lower leagues. 

    And if you've never seen a 19 year old that doesn't get better, you haven't watched much football.


    I think when we've reached arguments that PA is "racist" because the US national team isn't as good as Brazil's or Germany's it's probably where we start to realise that PA is a lot better than the lunacy we'd get if SI caved into demands to eliminate it...

  14. 4 hours ago, Haiku said:

    It's not that researchers get wrong, but rather it's the one and the only fictional parameter that no one can predict.

    Nobody knows what the "professionalism" or "ambition" or "natural talent" or "injury proneness" of a 17 year old is either. Indeed it's usually much easier and more accurate to judge that a player is (i) your best prospect (ii) still has a fair bit of growing to do (iii) probably isn't going to cut it at the next level up because none of those clubs are interested and stick them in the appropriate minus bracket than it is to rate a 17 year old's professionalism and ambition on a scale of 1 to 20.

    Replacing researchers' good and usually fairly accurate guesstimate of how good a player might become with a complicated function of multiple other variables which are even bigger guesses and also supposed to have other completely different in-game effects isn't going to lead to a more plausible game world

    For every Jamie Vardy or Luca Toni, there are tens of thousands of players in the lower leagues that the research team correctly predicted would not become internationals. It'd be ridiculous to reengineer the game so they all could be if their attitude was good enough (in which case Jamie Vardy with his criminal record and drink problem could be about the only former Halifax player not in contention for the England team!)

    As for Tielemans, a 20 year old with top division ability, reputation to attract the best clubs and excellent personality is going to usually end up world class regardless of what algorithm you use (actually, the current semi-random PA system which gives him a chance of his potential maxing out at 150 is probably the system most likely to make him fail to become world class).

  15. Regulating the speed of a player's growth imposes an effective limit on their growth, for a given age and starting ability. It's just that if researchers aren't provided with an up to date calculation in the research tool, they don't know what that limit is. Which is hardly an improvement in the research process. And involves much more guesswork than how good they might become, because players' rate of improvement isn't steady IRL (and the whole reason why players like Vardy or Toni burst onto the scene later in their careers is that they actually improved very slowly as youngsters and weren't obviously talented, they just carried on getting better after most players had peaked)

    A game in which people still playing a five year old version are amused to find that NGolo Kante has turned into a mediocre striker rather than a world class midfielder sounds a lot less problematic than a game where a pretty much any young Serie C or above player can become an Italy international if they have top class training facilities and regular starts, and talented 21 year olds continue improving until they're godlike geniuses unless they get injured. Because missing the occasional Kante is a lot less silly than it being pretty much inevitable that Jordan Pickford ends up better than Buffon and Harry Winks better than Pirlo.

    How many of Marco Parolo's Como teammates made the jump from playing in Serie C in their early twenties to become Italy internationals? Is it not possible the reason is that Parolo did and they stayed in Serie C is not because they were unlucky with injuries and not being signed by a club with better training facilities, but because he had the potential to be a very good player and most of them didn't?

  16. On 10/29/2017 at 12:35, vikeologist said:

    Nope. It's a real feature, though obviously not for real players. A pint to the first person who figures out how to change the code so a certain someone finally comes out of the closet. I wonder if sexuality is now a hidden attribute. 

    I'm hoping this shows up in scout tools so we can have a new challenge of trying to win the Champions League with a team composed entirely of gay regens :)

  17. Nice looking screens. Hope (but it wasn't made 100% clear) an effect is that training can be turned down or up for individual players, especially when you've got players whose fitness, injury proneness (or attitude) warrants a slightly different training programme.

    The ability to use sport science to help prolong players' careers would be far more interesting than the information on injuries themselves too. Especially since injuries are turned down to very low levels in FM anyway...

    I wonder if as part of this overhaul SI will turn injury numbers up? It'll mean more complaints. But they'll get complaints about numbers of injuries in the latest FM regardless of what they've changed at all from the last one or not...

  18. The challenge is that it's usually the players who have been released from bottom tier clubs that are most likely to be of interest for a zero budget, relatively low reputation bottom tier club. You wouldn't expect many of these players' attributes to show up but you would expect their names to show up in search when you're looking at possible trial candidates. Same goes for players in different regional leagues at the same level or nearby players at the step below. If you can't find out these available players exist without buying a scouting package or manually scouting the club it's probably not a step forward in terms of realism

    I'm a little more confident the new scouting system doesn't do ridiculously restrictive stuff like stopping you from scouting youth players from nearby professional clubs 

  19. 31 minutes ago, Barside said:

    This is where my skeptism comes from, as a human manager I can put together a very attacking 451, I had MSN scoring 100+ goals in a season & given the same players it’s easy to outbtactic the AI because it lacks the ability to formulate a cohesive tactical approach or adapt to what is happening other than a binary are we winning or losing & what did we expect logic & now SI is asking another set of AI code to be adept at more complex squad management principles, simply put I have my doubts that there will be a challenge from other managers & the only likely cause of failure is not selecting the correct option in an interaction mini-game.

    Tn theory the AI could handle many aspects of the squad management near perfectly (since you can hard code knowledge of how players will react to an action, and players' responses to a particular action must be considerably less complex a simulation than the ME) but then the dreaded "AI Realism" vs AI performance trade off rears its head, and the game ensures that managers with attributes that make them disciplinarians will always take the tough option even if it provokes squad riots, and managers with bad man management attributes will frequently fail to take even basic steps, and then you get the AI screwing up in more ways than it did before.

    I mean, there's an argument than an AI which usually sees Mourinho fall out with his players and get sacked after two or three seasons is an improvement on one where he seems to stick around for a while, but I'm not sure players finding their title races too easy already will see it that way.


    If I had to guess at how humans will behave significantly differently to the AI and derive enormous benefit, I'd anticipate that the AI will be programmed to see high influence players just past their prime as fantastic assets to the squad, whereas the experienced human manager will do everything they possibly can to avoid being stuck with players who will make the entire dressing room unhappy when they don't start, and make the team weaker with their lack of pace when they do.

  20. 35 minutes ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

    I'm amazed at how people who aren't employed at a real life football club would know this. 

    25 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

    I'm amazed at how people employed at all can't relate to it.

    I'm amazed that anyone who has ever had any kind of interaction with another human being thinks FM conversations, the choices of response forced on you and the inability to resolve them by having future conversations represent realistic approximations of human interaction with somebody you see on a day to day basis.

    But my comment was aimed more at the fact that while the research team can do a pretty good job of ensuring FM players perform similarly to their real life counterparts by watching how strong, quick and technical they are, they can't thoroughly assess whether players have a relatively more professional personality than their teammates (unless their teammate is Balotelli), so a lot of the attributes which determine player personalities are guesswork or randomly determined at game start. Which, funnily enough, is a result of researchers not being employed at the club in real life. :D 



  21. - I like the position widgets

    - The "cards" interface would actually be really handy for assessing opposition lineups (especially with the ability to user-select attributes by position and sensible defaults) although I assume it's for a module I probably won't use

    - Better scouting would be a good thing. The "scouting packages" looks like more of a shortcut to revealing attributes without bothering with hiring and assigning than anything else (though that's not necessarily a bad thing) But the bit about scouting which could really use a fix is revealing the attributes of scouted players in a logical as well as gradual manner. Remember some very good suggestions on these forums a good 10 years or so ago, would be interested to see if it's caught up to that.

    - Haven't seen enough of the match engine to see if it's an improvement. The players look slightly chunkier to me, which in an ideal world means better modelling of physical challenges

    - Dynamics - If (as some people are speculating) one of the benefits is that you get some tactical benefit from having (e.g) centre backs play together pretty consistently for a season or two then that's a significant realism enhancement, because right now there's really none of the real life benefit to consistency in team selection (though if you asked me to guess what the lines between players on tactics screens actually meant I'd say "main passing direction" - also a good thing but for different reasons)

    On the other hand, player personalities and interactions have always been by far the most irritating, least convincing, least necessary and most utterly unrelated to how the players actually are in real life part of FM, so I'm less than optimistic about making them much more important. I guess a bit more emphasis on players with shared languages resolving adaptation difficulties and becoming each others' favoured personnel might be neat, and I've got no issue with making the apparently mostly irrelevant "influence" attribute have more effect in certain situations but I can do without squad rebellions because the useless reserve player I've transfer listed is part of the "core" group, more complex side effects from bugs involving players not being selected for squads they weren't even eligible for and even more stupid forced choice conversations with stupid reactions and stupid side effects. :D

  • Create New...